linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 4/4] Documentation: Provide suggestions on when to repost patches

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 15 Dec 2014 11:13:19 +0100
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Kevin Cernekee <cernekee@...il.com>
Cc:	tglx@...utronix.de, gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	computersforpeace@...il.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, corbet@....net,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 4/4] Documentation: Provide suggestions on when to repost
 patches

On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 10:09:50PM -0800, Kevin Cernekee wrote:
> Give submitters a rough idea of how long to wait before reposting, to
> help avoid situations where a series is reposted before the original
> submission is fully reviewed.
> 
> Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Kevin Cernekee <cernekee@...il.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/development-process/6.Followthrough | 5 ++++-
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/development-process/6.Followthrough b/Documentation/development-process/6.Followthrough
> index 41d324a..6cefb6c 100644
> --- a/Documentation/development-process/6.Followthrough
> +++ b/Documentation/development-process/6.Followthrough
> @@ -74,7 +74,10 @@ around.
>  One fatal mistake is to ignore review comments in the hope that they will
>  go away.  They will not go away.  If you repost code without having
>  responded to the comments you got the time before, you're likely to find
> -that your patches go nowhere.
> +that your patches go nowhere.  On the flipside, reposting an updated patch
> +before the original has been fully reviewed can be a source of frustration
> +too,

I'd like to make that aspect stronger/more explicit:

"Please do repost only after the reviewers have finished going through
your submission and you have collected, addressed and/or incorporated
their full feedback. You can use the time while waiting to test and
hammer more on your code. Any non-trivial submission of a patchset
should be resent after a full week (7 days) the earliest in order not to
spam people unnecessarily and to give them a chance to at least finish
reviewing."

Anyway, something like that, formulation might need more cleaning up - I
was just trying to express the sentiment...

> so consider giving the reviewers ~3-7 calendar days (depending on
> +patch complexity) before posting V2.
>  
>  Speaking of reposting code: please bear in mind that reviewers are not
>  going to remember all the details of the code you posted the last time

Thanks for doing this, btw!

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/